Here goes a stupid idea for a thread, so sue me.

If you were running for President / were actually President, what would you try to accomplish? Here's my "platform"

1) A truly balanced budget. No more printing up more money to "make up" for budget deficits. Gov't spending would be limited by the previous year's tax receipts. Any bills that introduce more spending would have to offset the expense by deallocating matching funds from the budget. Gov't budgets also operate based on corporate accounting laws.

2) Lobbyists are no more. Period. Their sole reason for existing is for polite bribery. They rob the common man of his voice in the gov't and promote a "money = power" mentality that is corrupting and dangerous. Also, congressmen should be spending time with their actual constituents, NOT with lobbyists.

3) No more "whips". Party-line bullshit is another serious problem. There is no reason to have someone in Congress who is there to tell people how to vote. Congressmen should vote their conscience or for what their constituents want, NOT for what their party wants.

4) Clean up health-care. While I don't believe that health-care is a "right," I do see that the industry as a whole in the US is out of control. There is no reason that a prescription in the US should cost 3 or 4 times what it costs in Canada. The FDA needs cleaning up in order to get it OUT of the pockets of the drug companies. Also, "lifestyle drugs" such as viagra should NOT be paid for by medicaid and the like. Grandpa's inability to get it up isn't a medical emergency, and if drug companies didn't spend so much money peddling dick pills on TV and the radio, it might *gasp* bring prices down. PLUS, it would reduce the tendency to rush drugs to market in order to recoup costs, despite adequate safety testing, especially if coupled with serious punitive fines on companies who put out unsafe drugs.

5) A sensible Iraq policy. What we are doing isn't working, and it never will, because we are seen as occupiers. I would seek to get a much more global peacekeeping force in there. That will give us a much better chance at not being seen as occupiers. It will reduce our casualties, as well as actually lead to success in Iraq much quicker. Also, I would try to get IRAQI business and firms, where practical" to engage in the rebuilding. That will once again reduce our image as an occupier who is there solely to plunder. Plus, it will keep the "wealth" generated by the rebuilding effort in Iraq, as opposed to sending it over to the US. This helps Iraq, as they can use that money to rebuild other facets of their economy. Any US companies with ties to oil should be avoided as potential contractors, as well. Most of our rebuilding efforts should be focused on roads, food, electricity, and water. Forget schools for now, as they are likely to be seen as brainwashing centres. Hospitals and housing should also be avoided until roads, electricity, and water can be restored. The reason is simple: when insurgents attack housing or hospitals, it's easy for the public to say "not my problem" or at least to rationalize it away. Water and electricity affect EVERYONE, Sunni or Shiite. So when an insurgent attacks an electrical contractor, the general public will get mad at the insurgents, NOT the US. Thus, public opinion in Iraq will naturally turn against terrorism, as terrorism will directly hurt Iraq.

6) A sensible foreign policy. STOP fucking with other countries, period, especially in the Middle East. While the US can't be completely isolationist, we should certainly move back towards that direction so that we will stop pissing off people around the world. Not pissing people off will generally help reduce terrorism, as well.

7) REAL campaign finance reform. Campaign contributions will not be tax-deductible (if they currently are, I don't know...) Absolutely NO contributions from businesses. Our country was not created by "We the Companies." It was created by "We the People." Thus, only the People should have a voice in the gov't. No PACs or any of the other bullshit things. All donations come from individuals, with no limits. HOWEVER, there would be a "luxury tax" of sorts on contributions. When an individual contributes more than a certain flat dollar amount, then a percentage of their contribution would actually go to a general fund which will be distributed evenly among ALL candidates for the office. The general fund would also be used to pay for the administration costs of such a program.
Any public official who is caught in any activities of corruption will be forced to pay back the amount of money that he was given by general fund FROM HIS OWN POCKET. He will also be immediately removed from office, and he will have to pay for the costs incurred in electing the next person. This is in addition to any other penalties imposed by the courts, such as jail time and the like.
Edit: Improper usage of election contributions for elections by ANY candidate, victor or not, would require repayment of the general funds. Candidates can opt out of receiving the general funds in exchange for a lessened "luxury tax" percentage, but they would still be bound by the fund-raising rules and restrictions. And, in the event of corruption, even if you opt-out, you would still have to pay back the general fund amount you would have received, or the amount of the discounted "luxury tax," whichever is greater (maybe even twice the amount of the discounted luxury tax).

8) The public controls Congress's salary. If we don't think they are doing a good job, then they DON'T get a raise. They might even get a pay cut. Enough with this partisan bullshit, let's force Congress to actually DO SOMETHING.

9) Social Security changes. Anyone who wants to can opt out of SS at any time and not be taxed for it anymore, but the money he has paid into it will be lost forever. If he opts out of SS, then he loses all benefits traditionally associated with it, including Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Once you opt out of SS, you cannot opt back in. Also, SS has a true lock-box mechanism, and Congress cannot raid this fund, no matter what. The ultimate aim should be to eliminate SS, but to let the people decide that on an individual basis. If the public wants to keep SS, then they will do so by not opting out. Otherwise, it will die out and the public will resume a more healthy model of actually preparing for its financial future on its own, thus removing gov't corruption and innefficiency from the equation.

10) Marriage, or something like it, is settled. We, as a nation, decide what the hell marriage is. We remove the religious component from it entirely, as far as the gov't is concerned. The rights and benefits that we deem should be given to "married people" are then extended to any couple which can legally enter into such a contract. Gay, Straight, whatever. Of course, you can only be married to one person at a time, that goes without saying, and marriage is explicitly defined as existing between two, and only two, people.



So yeah, lots of words, but there you have it. That's my "plan." How crazy is it? How about your plans? GO

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 12:30 AM. Reason : edit]

6/29/2007 12:13:16 AM

Won't vote for you. No environmental policy.

6/29/2007 12:15:02 AM

^ well, I think that when we take out a lot of the corrupting influence of business, then environmental policies will be a natural result, since the people generally want a clean environment. Congress will have no choice BUT to listen to the public, so if the people clamour for environmental changes, then they will get it.

6/29/2007 12:17:04 AM

You would think that. I have become too much of a cynic to think that the market or the people give a damn about the environment any further than it pertains to their own well being or health. Do I expect everyone to be a sandal wearing tree hugger like I am? Not in the least. But the current apathy is appalling from both sides.

6/29/2007 12:38:58 AM

well, the market shouldn't affect the gov't, in general. The market should let the gov't be, and the gov't should generally let the market be, as well. thus, the market's stance on the environment shouldn't matter. then again, it is generally more expensive for business to care about the environment, so any market influence would likely be a negative one anway.

as for people caring about the environment, that's a different animal. While clearly you are concerned about it, if others aren't, then I, as President, would not make it a huge priority in my administration. Sure, I would still be against rampant raping of the land, such as pouring waste into rivers and the like, but I'm not going to go whole hog and make things like GW a major issue if the people don't care about it, especially with the other far more pressing issues that face the country. Granted, part of that is because I doubt the veracity of anthropogenic GW of course, but if the people were really concerned about it, then they will let their congressmen know about it, and their voices will actually be HEARD over the money of big business. So, in some respects, your environmental concerns would actually be better addressed, because your voice could actually be heard.

6/29/2007 12:50:54 AM

I have found that one of the biggest tragedies with discussing environmental policy at this time is that it always boils down to or reverts back to global warming. There are more pressing impacts such as habitation loss and pollution that are getting drowned out by the screaming heads frothing about climate change this and hurt economies that.

6/29/2007 12:58:21 AM

i smell ya. I haven't heard much about those issues, but likely because everyone is frothing at the mouth about GW. either way, I don't see how those issues could effectively be made into a presidential platform, at least not for me, other than "let the people bring it up w/ their representatives"

6/29/2007 1:01:44 AM

Well having at least addressed my primary concern with an intelligent answer and how your other policies seem spot on I would take a much closer look at what you have to say. But then again you make too much sense to get elected by the general populous of sheep.

6/29/2007 1:08:17 AM

I would reccomend to president burro that many environmental conflicts can be solved with a strong protection of private property rights. People tend to take care of their stuff, while stuff that is owned by "everyone" gets abused the most..(and the biggest abuser is usually the gov't).

In a country of property rights, common law can work quite well to protect the environment. If you build a factory next to me and noxious fumes starts killing all the trees on my property, common law will grant me relief and restitution.

The tricky part comes in with resources that are jointly consumed and not easily segmented into ownership chunks. The air and rivers come to mind. In these cases, the gov't has a legitimate role in becoming involved.

The ideas I have read that I would reccomend to the prez would be

1) Base environmental standards on outcomes rather than activities. The gov't decides what standards should be met and then get out of the way to let industries meet those standards through their innovations. Over-regulating and nit-picking every little thing just increases costs and is seldom effective.

2) Make sure the citizenry understands the costs associated with the standards they want. Super clean water will cost this much more in taxes than really clean water..then let them vote and decide.

3) Depoliticize the environment. There are many socialists hiding out in the environmental movement today whose goal is more eliminating capitalism rather than pollution.

6/29/2007 1:59:48 AM

I would vote for you aaronburro i like your platform

6/29/2007 2:07:11 AM

burro, please forgive me if this is a detraction from your spotlight but EarthDogg makes an interesting point. Is it a fair statement that the majority of land is already privately owned? I see signs all the time of available land by companies or persons. This being said what happens when the land becomes more valuable as a strip mall or a parking lot rather than a habitat despite it's sensitivity? Probably the same that happens now. It becomes a strip mall and we chalk it up to "Oh well. They're animals. They'll cope".

6/29/2007 4:52:38 AM

Well, if I could get anything passed it would be a constitutional amendment making the various elements of the constitution more concrete. The interstate commerce clause would be repealed and replaced with: "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and with the Indian Tribes. The congress shall have the power to prevent discrimination and other barriers to interstate commerce."

I would peg Social Security payments to inflation, not wages, and eliminate the Payroll tax, replacing it with a carbon tax.

Oh, and I would put an end to all the intrigue being pedaled by the CIA and the like in foreign countries. I would also speed up shrinking the military, not a lot, just by about 1/4th, after ending the overseas occupations (in due coarse).

So, after making nearly everything the federal government does unconstitutional, then we'll wait and see what the Supreme Court does with it. But such an amendment would never pass, so there.

^ Hockey, if you see land that must/should be preserved as natural habitat, then get together with a whole bunch of your friends and buy it. You can then do whatever you want with it. The guy wanting to build a strip-mall can easily build it elsewhere, so I suspect if you are desperate to save some endangered species that you will be willing to outbid the strip-mall builder.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/29/2007 9:40:42 AM

Quote :

"then get together with a whole bunch of your friends and buy it"

The Nature Conservancy does just that. It buys up land to preserve it. Unfortunately, it often gets the gov't to sic the EPA on targeted landowners. Excessive regulation by the EPA makes their land basically useless and the Nature Conservancy swoops in and buys it off him for a song.

6/29/2007 10:31:37 AM

We really need someone that can bring the country back together and mend these deep republican/democrat divides.

We need some kind of health care reform, particularly in making private insurance more affortable. I like the idea of requiring 85% of premiums be spent on patient care rather than a tent at the US Open. I like the idea of some tort reform (although the common suggestions will do little to help) and malpractice rate increases should be proportional to the claim paid out. Malpractice insurance companies are making substantial profits and I would love to see the figures on the percentage of premiums are spent on claims and claim defense.

Maybe make health insurance/care expenses an above line deduction rather than 7.5 % reduction and an itemized. That would encourage preventative care and private insurance purchases.

I would love to see whatever immigration bill require immigrants, farm workers and ultimately illegals to purchase very basic health coverage in the event they end up at the ER. My ideal policy would cover accidents/certain er visits and be around $100 with an undetermined maximum. There would need to be something in place to instill the idea that the ER is for emergencies only and to seek other care when symptoms emerge. I have no idea how to implement that, but it could be attached to drivers license fees. If you apply for a license without proof of health insurance, you have to show proof of this coverage. I just want some way for hospitals and doctors to collect part of the bad debt that they encounter every year.

Whether its the government giving tax breaks to small businesses or allowing people with substantial health problems to receive and pay for a government sponsored coverage that would take the burden off their employers. That would make it affordable to offer coverage.

The more people with insurance, the less the burden on the doctors and the hospitals. The costs of an uninsured patient are passed on to the services of the insured. There are so many potential problems with any of those above items.

Also, we can't give the vast majority of the American public the responsibility to plan for their own retirement. The most someone will pay into SS for a year is 8k, if they meet the 90k cap. If something happens and they become disabled, they can get what they have paid in out of it. If they pass away before they collect, the amount is credited to the estate.

The majority of Americans do not save money for retirement and without SS they would have nothing to live on. Its more of an insurance policy to keep people off welfare and other services in retirement. I have handled several estates where the deceased was making pretty good money and was educated. They all had piddly amounts in their 401k plans and little savings elsewhere. Its a very sad situation. My fiance works for SECU and he had two teachers come in last week and empty out their 401ks to have money for the summer.

6/29/2007 10:49:07 AM

Quote :

"2) Lobbyists are no more. Period. Their sole reason for existing is for polite bribery. They rob the common man of his voice in the gov't and promote a "money = power" mentality that is corrupting and dangerous. Also, congressmen should be spending time with their actual constituents, NOT with lobbyists. "

Everyone bitches and moans about lobbyists; because that is what is being fed them. Lobbyists are not these evil entitites. In reality, without lobbyists, representatives and senators would have no idea about a great deal of things. It is impossible for one office to be fluent in every possible action that could come before them to vote on. Furthermore, it is impossible for many of these representatives and senators to spend their time with actual constitutents. When you get two days off, it is hard to go to Minneapolis minnesota and get the nitty gritty on. Likewise, when it is 3pm and you have a vote at 5pm, it is impossible to be with constituents.


So, don't believe all the bullshit they spew at you.

Quote :

"3) No more "whips". Party-line bullshit is another serious problem. There is no reason to have someone in Congress who is there to tell people how to vote. Congressmen should vote their conscience or for what their constituents want, NOT for what their party wants."

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. Whips are there mainly for procedural votes. Furthermore, do you think the citizens of NC-11 care about a local bill for CA-03? No they don't and the whip is important to make sure the majority party maintains the majority at any time of the time. You are a goddamned fool. They also prevent the minority party from killing legislation with catfish amendments.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .].


[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 11:22 AM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 11:16:01 AM

Quote :

"Also, we can't give the vast majority of the American public the responsibility to plan for their own retirement."

Why not? I'm taking responsibility for my retirement. Are you?

Quote :

"they can get [more than] what they have paid in out of it."

Which is the problem with social security...it pays out more than it takes in.

Quote :

"I would love to see whatever immigration bill require [...] illegals to purchase very basic health coverage"

This is just funny to me.

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

6/29/2007 11:22:01 AM

Quote :

"9) Social Security changes. Anyone who wants to can opt out of SS at any time and not be taxed for it anymore, but the money he has paid into it will be lost forever. If he opts out of SS, then he loses all benefits traditionally associated with it, including Medicare/Medicaid, etc. Once you opt out of SS, you cannot opt back in. Also, SS has a true lock-box mechanism, and Congress cannot raid this fund, no matter what. The ultimate aim should be to eliminate SS, but to let the people decide that on an individual basis. If the public wants to keep SS, then they will do so by not opting out. Otherwise, it will die out and the public will resume a more healthy model of actually preparing for its financial future on its own, thus removing gov't corruption and innefficiency from the equation."

Not that I love the SS system (because it's going to fail), but you do realize all the "rich" people will pull out because they can easily to better for retirement through investments leaving the whole thing to end, and then the "poor" will get nothing and complain that the rich get all the breaks, right?

6/29/2007 12:08:43 PM

My Platform:

"I'm not George Bush"

6/29/2007 12:54:11 PM

Quote :

"would love to see whatever immigration bill require [...] illegals to purchase very basic health coverage"

You mean like how we require them to purchase basic car insurance? GREAT PLAN!

6/29/2007 1:17:00 PM

Quote :

"The majority of Americans do not save money for retirement and without SS they would have nothing to live on. Its more of an insurance policy to keep people off welfare and other services in retirement"

The majority of Americans don't save for retirement because they believed the lie that SS would be all they would ever need. Now it turns out that SS is completely worthless.

Quote :

"In reality, without lobbyists, representatives and senators would have no idea about a great deal of things."

Good. Then maybe there wouldn't be so much bull shit flying around in Congress. Lobbyists are paid to lie and distort the truth. They are hardly the kinds of people that I want "informing" Congressman about important things.

Quote :

"Furthermore, do you think the citizens of NC-11 care about a local bill for CA-03? No they don't and the whip is important to make sure the majority party maintains the majority at any time of the time."

Why the fuck is the national gov't spending time micromanaging one measly fucking district? Don't you think that is part of the problem? And again, the point of a representative is to think and vote based on what his constituents want or to vote on his own principles. His purpose is NOT to tow the party line. That, my dear, is another huge part of the problem. And once we get rid of the bullshit party-line stuff, then you can expect the "catfish amendments" to disappear

Quote :

"but you do realize all the "rich" people will pull out because they can easily to better for retirement through investments leaving the whole thing to end, and then the "poor" will get nothing and complain that the rich get all the breaks, right?"

So, we should hold onto a broken, non-functional system in order to prevent the growing pains which would occur from implementing a system that actually works? great idea! But, my plan would be to cut funding elsewhere to pay for SS until it is solvent on its own right or completely unused. It would entail actually saving the money that people pay into it in order to pay them back when the time comes for them to withdraw. Any deficits will come out of the federal budget and from the funds of those who paid in more than they received before their death. Ultimately, people would be better suited to invest their own money, and they will see that fairly quickly, thus ending SS for pretty much everyone except for current retirees and the few who choose to remain on it.

I won't lie, it will be initially expensive, there is no way around that. However, coupled with intelligent budgeting and decreasing the size of the gov't (Homeland Security would be the first thing to go, btw), the money could easily be rounded up. No one ever said that difficult problems would be easy to solve, and the problem is that no politician in Washington currently has the balls to do what it takes to actually solve difficult problems, because getting votes is all that matters right now.

6/29/2007 7:29:50 PM

one word: THEOCRACY.

moo hah hah ha ha

6/30/2007 2:30:32 AM

1) sounds good

2) sounds great
…however, there is free speech and all.

How about transforming lobbying into an open source internet based system without actual human lobbyists….more of a clever cyber-democracy that allows constituents low-cost access, while at the same time providing accountability and visibility. Constituents have more widespread access to the Internet than to lobbyists, by far. (bloggyists, or something)

3) sounds good, but not hugely important….or even necessary with other changes.

4) sounds good
….health care, indeed, is not a right. Assertions that it is are absurd.

There needs to be less government involvement in every level of medicine……
…...bi-partisan fascism is why costs are so high and everything is seemingly "broken".

The FDA needs to be replaced by either a handful of public-private entities or many dozens of private companies competing with each other over accuracy, and doing so fully openly to the public. NO MORE SECRETS.

Also, the MAIN focus in the discussion over national health care should be the issue of whether (or to what degree,) an individual's health care need is caused by their own irresponsible negligence or caused by an unfortunate accident.

Charity is helping to pay for the innocent victim of a car accident…..
…..not helping to pay for the lazy junk food eating couch potato.

5) sounds good

6) couldn't agree more

7) sounds good
….I came up with a similar idea in the Multi-Party System thread--yours is much better thought out…

With a system involving the pooling of campaign funds (a rising tide lifts all ships,) LoneSnark mentioned the possibility of suffering from a free-rider phenomenon, whereby eventually no one would contribute anything……
…..I'm not so sure.

Candidates need money for their campaigns, and I don't see them giving up money just because their opponent would get the same amount. Campaigns would become more about how the money is spent, not how much money is spent. That could only be good.

8) sounds good
….how could the president accomplish that, though?

9) sounds ok, I guess…..
…..there's no good way to deal with SS…inevitably, some people are gonna get fucked

10) You're pretty close….definitely in the right direction, but…..

How can you remove the religious component from marriage, but still have a standard by which to say who "can legally enter into such a contract"?

A couple? Any two people?
(Why do you think "that goes without saying"? Pragmatism?)

Why only two?
Is there really something necessarily inherently wrong with polygamy?
(other than not standing a chance of winning on such a platform)

Anthropologists have no evidence that polygamy is unnatural or unhealthy, just different. It is the goal of anthropology to make all human differences acceptable. (moral relativism; cultural sensitivity; **ahem**, this is America, hello? land of the free?)

Who are we to say that consenting adults may not "wed" in groups of two or more?
(Please do not post any bullshit about how polygamy can't exist without patriarchy and/or pedophilia….)

Marriage should be defined by private entities, not the government. The government's role should simply be to guarantee that marriage contracts be enforced, despite their content, (and to ensure, of course, that no one is forced into a contract, and that the contract is not fraudulent, etc.)


*) As for environmental policy, I agree with the need to use strong enforcement of property rights, but that's just a fraction of the issue.

I also agree with the need to de-politicize the environmental movement.
Socialists are popping up everywhere, and need to GTFO.

What needs to happen is that all the shared resources (water, air, etc.) should be viewed as being owned by everyone. Then, simply apply the basic libertarian principle to that. (ok, not so simple……)

That way, any individual or corporation (public or private,) must be responsible for and pay for all harms associated with their actions, now and forever.

I think it would eventually even be possible to nearly eliminate landfilling by forcing producers to be responsible for the lifetime of their products, including packaging. No need for New York City Socialism calling for bans on bottled water…the g0vt shouldn't have that [socialist] authority….instead, just force the water bottlers to pay for the costs associated with the environmental damage done by plastic bottle landfilling and littering based on the libertarian shared property rights scheme.
Complicated? Yes.
Impossible? No.

6/30/2007 11:08:21 AM

1) Military:
*Increased military pay, possibly increase in all military spending such as r&d, etc
*Increase number serving
*Restructuring of the way wars are fought. Ie, when I ask Congress to declare war and they do, I tell the military commanders "Here are my goals, get them done." I don't say another word to them. They fight the war the way it's supposed to be fought, by the military.
*Veterans and retires receive full benefits and are allowed to choose their doctors wherever they live.

2) Campaign Finance Reform:
*Individual donations ONLY allowed, up to a certain limit per quarter.
*All debating done on CSPAN with a truly independent moderator. Each candidate allowed to the same amount of time to answer questions, all candidates allowed to answer all questions, equal camera time given to each.
*Research into the possibility of instituting a competency test for voting in an election.

3) Lobbying:
*Illegal. Every single citizen has the right and ability to write their Congressmen. If enough of them feel the same way then they can all send their shit in. Lobbying is out of hand and no law will restrain it other than complete illegality. I leave this particular point up for debate because I honestly haven't researched enough to know truly whether there are any instances where lobbying is beneficial.

4) Environment:
*Subsidize research into more efficient everything, not just cars. Homes. Power infrastructure, heating, air conditioning, etc. In fact I would dare say that the cars should be the last priority.
*Reduce amount of pollution in all industries.

5) Healthcare:
*Research into effect of nationalized healthcare.
*Research into effect of regulating insurance industry.

6) Crime:
*Legalize marijuana. To be retroactive too.
*Research into possibility of awarding all violent criminals the death penalty and speeding up the process. This would be to free up prison space, though it might not be necessary because legalizing marijuana will free up a LOT of space.
*Research into privatizing prison system. Dangerous area, could lead to corruption.

7) Iraq:
*Ultimatum given to people: "Stand up for yourselves or you will be considered the enemy."
*200,000 troop increase, not phased in, instant.
*Massive offensive, shoot to kill, no prisoners.
*Rebuild critical infrastructure. Zones set around critical infrastructures where not a soul is allowed. *Employees strip searched before being allowed to enter. Terrorists discovered are shot on the spot.

8) Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, all other Middle Eastern Nations:
*Sit down, "what will work in Iraq for the good of the region?", listen to their input
*Say to Iran, "Meddle in Iran if you will, for every US Soldier's death that we link to you, we bomb a neighborhood at random in Iran.

9) North Korea:
*Complete naval blockade. Their people starve or overthrow their government. Must work with South Korea on this, they have the potential to lose the largest.

10) Foreign Policy:
*No more foreign aid anywhere unless we receive something in return. Instead we use that aid for our citizens or keep it and reduce taxes.
*Strongly let the world know that anytime we are attacked we will retaliate at 10x the ferocity.

11) Separation of powers:
*Branches will be reviewed to make sure each is awarded its powers granted by the constitution. Any encroaching policies rescinded

12) Massive Beauacracy:
*Interagency networks established so that FBI has direct access to NYPD, LAPD, NSA, etc. intelligence information. This however will not be unfettered. Access will have to be given but there will be one person accountable in each department responsible for that. Should only take one phone call to get access in a time of need.

13) Immigration:
*Militarized border with Mexico
*Shoot to injure order given, if this doesn't work, shoot to kill.
*People of Mexico STRONGLY encouraged to take it upon themselves to make their country be what it has the potential to be.
*Citizenship granted for 6 years armed forces service. This means Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Air Force. Maybe Coast Guard too.
*People with critical skills such as language or technical granted Visas quicker and allowed to enter country. Citizenship granted after 8 years.

14) Social Security:
*Research. It's an extremely complicated issue and I don't know enough about it. I'm only 22

15) Separation of church and state:
*If churches pay no taxes, churches receive no funding or special treatment.
*Religion NOT allowed to be discussed when campaigning for any public office.
*Evolution taught in school, creation taught at church.
*Seriously consider elimination of tax breaks for churches and instead allow them to write off any donation or charity or humanitarian expenses

16) Marriage:
*Leave that to the states.



Have I let anything out?

[Edited on June 30, 2007 at 3:08 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/30/2007 3:08:23 PM

Me as Dictator.

6/30/2007 3:30:00 PM

maybe if i get to know you more you can have a spot in my govt

6/30/2007 3:39:15 PM

As far as marriage goes, I support the idea of letting any couple who wants to get married do so legally with all the legal consequences that comes along with it. If they want an individual church’s support, then they can ask the individual church for it.

“Leave it to the states” feels like a cop out. Marriage is something that I think should be consistent across our nation. Individual citizens should make the legal decision to enter into legal marriages, churches can make the religious decision to throw spiritual backing their way. But the state of Wyoming or Nebraska seem like rather arbitrary decision makers in this situation.

6/30/2007 4:45:15 PM

Veto any law that comes to my desk without the specific article and section of the constitution which allows for that law.

6/30/2007 5:17:34 PM

Quote :

"There is no reason that a prescription in the US should cost 3 or 4 times what it costs in Canada."

obviously you are an idiot. canadians pay the GST which helps offset the costs of medication. you pay for it either way.

Quote :

"Also, "lifestyle drugs" such as viagra should NOT be paid for by medicaid and the like."

they arent

[Edited on June 30, 2007 at 5:58 PM. Reason : 

6/30/2007 5:54:39 PM

1) Bring back Gladiators
2) Free beer
3) every family recieves a 50 inch plasma

6/30/2007 6:18:19 PM

Quote :

"2) sounds great …however, there is free speech and all. "

no one is stopping any person from being able to use their free speech rights. rather, this proposal would prevent businesses from using rights to which they are not entitled. The person who owns the businesses has free speech, the business does not. If the business owner wants to contribute money or talk to his congressman, there is nothing stopping him from doing so... as a citizen.

Quote :

"8) sounds good ….how could the president accomplish that, though?"

Probably through the amendment process or at least by pushing legislation through Congress while publicly extolling the praises of such legislation and how it will benefit the citizens...

Quote :

"How can you remove the religious component from marriage, but still have a standard by which to say who "can legally enter into such a contract"?"

By that phrase, I meant people who can legally enter into contracts, in general. IIRC, minors usually cannot enter into legal contracts without the approval of their parents. That's the ultimate point I was getting at.

Quote :

"Why only two?"

Mainly to avoid tax evasion as much as possible. In this country, marriage has the connotation as being between two people. Some have made it out to be "man-woman," but the idea of a "union" typically has been 2 people. Anything more and it more accurately fits the definition of a business or corporation.

Quote :

"“Leave it to the states” feels like a cop out."

Really, though, it isn't. There is a school of thought that says "if it aint in the Constitution, then the 10th amendment says 'give it to the states.'" The reason I would say to make a nation-wide issue of it is that marriage is viewed by some as a civil right, so I would be for seeing what of it actually is a civil right, and then protecting that portion of it. That can't be done without separating the religious component from it, however.

7/2/2007 7:56:33 PM

Quote :

"Really, though, it isn't. There is a school of thought that says "if it aint in the Constitution, then the 10th amendment says 'give it to the states.'" The reason I would say to make a nation-wide issue of it is that marriage is viewed by some as a civil right, so I would be for seeing what of it actually is a civil right, and then protecting that portion of it. That can't be done without separating the religious component from it, however."

thank you for saying that

7/3/2007 4:40:26 PM

I doubt people would go for it, but I wonder what would happen if states could legally, through a referendum or super-majority of the legislature, leave the union?

I think the mere-threat of dividing the union would dramatically rein in the most egregious federal programs.

7/4/2007 12:14:33 AM

Quote :

"this proposal would prevent businesses from using rights to which they are not entitled. The person who owns the businesses has free speech, the business does not"

….sounds like you wish to overturn Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.
I couldn’t agree more.

Quote :

"Mainly to avoid tax evasion as much as possible. In this country, marriage has the connotation as being between two people. Some have made it out to be "man-woman," but the idea of a "union" typically has been 2 people. Anything more and it more accurately fits the definition of a business or corporation."

I see what you’re saying, but ultimately, that doesn’t make sense.
If three or more adults consent to plural marriage, but they may only legally approximate it by forming a three-or-more-person corporation, how does that corporation function as a marriage? How does it regard parental rights, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.? (marriage stuff)

If polygamy were legalized, I’m sure the tax laws would be changed accordingly…..

I have yet to hear anything close to a valid reason for the illegality of polygamy.

Indeed, the only reason it is banned is because of undue, unjust, and intolerant religious (mostly Christian,) influence in our government.

Quote :

"I would be for seeing what of it actually is a civil right, and then protecting that portion of it. That can't be done without separating the religious component from it, however."

The part that is a civil right is the right of consenting adults to enter into any contract they wish, so as long as the contract only affects them, and like I said above, isn’t coercive, fraudulent, etc.

Of course, this opens the door to tribes and clans and everything else, but why should the government have any power to deny these lifestyles, these, civil liberties?

7/16/2007 11:12:40 AM

Quote :

"*Research into the possibility of instituting a competency test for voting in an election."

Jim Crow laws anyone? And we have the lowest voter turnout in the world, why would we want to limit that even further. The whole point of democracy is so that every person has the opportunity to participate, whether or not they know what they're talking about is beside the point.

Quote :

"*Research into possibility of awarding all violent criminals the death penalty and speeding up the process. This would be to free up prison space, though it might not be necessary because legalizing marijuana will free up a LOT of space."

Seriously? That's completely unrealistic. Our legal system gives every person the right to due process. By instituting death penalty for every violent crime, you would be violating that right. Plus, death penalty cases actually cost more than putting someone in prison for life. Because death penalty cases have to be tried has a federal case, they cost a good deal more.

Quote :

"*200,000 troop increase, not phased in, instant."

Where would we get the troops?

Quote :

"No more foreign aid anywhere unless we receive something in return. Instead we use that aid for our citizens or keep it and reduce taxes."

Isn't a main point of foreign aid to help those who can't help themselves? By doing something like this, you would be completely cutting off a majority of 3rd world countries who depend on our aid to survive. Granted, our system of foreign aid doesn't hold the countries accountable as much as it should, we can't cut off all aid together. I'd be in favor of revamping the current system to ensure that there are proper goals and benchmarks are put in place.

Quote :

"16) Marriage: *Leave that to the states."

One thing we agree on

7/16/2007 12:40:12 PM

^ gg

7/16/2007 4:16:17 PM

Quote :

"Because death penalty cases have to be tried has a federal case, they cost a good deal more. "

ummmm. no they don't.

7/16/2007 7:22:00 PM

Proportional representation in congress

Strong military

Ban campaign contributions from all non private citizens, and cap at $5000 per person donation

Adequately fund public radio and media like the BBC, reinstate fairness doctrine

Illegal immigrants deported, no automatic citizenship for kids of illegal aliens, employers heavily punished

Legalize marijuana

Significant new spending to acquire land for new national parks and seashores

Place extra taxes on outsourced labor produced goods

Invest heavily in renewable energy and alternative fuels

Major reform to healthcare, major regulation of health insurance

Gun crimes (armed robbery and rape) also punishable by death

7/16/2007 10:05:34 PM

Quote :

"ummmm. no they don't."

Quote :

"Study Concludes Death Penalty is Costly Policy In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases. The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost"

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108

Quote :

"The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions. "

http://www.unc.edu/srp/Death_Penalty_Fact_Sheet.pdf



[Edited on July 16, 2007 at 10:33 PM. Reason : ]

7/16/2007 10:09:11 PM

Laissez faire capitalism.

http://www.capitalism.org/

7/17/2007 1:47:05 AM

also make it mandatory for every part of a bill to have the name(s) of the congressmen/senators who proposed it attached.

i.e., if Representative Smith wants to fund a bunch of pork projects unrelated to the crux of the bill, he'll have to attach his name to it, not just sneak it in under the radar.

Quote :

"If he opts out of SS, then he loses all benefits traditionally associated with it, including Medicare/Medicaid, etc."

medicare is a seperate tax from SS.

and yeah, i definitely think there should be a SS opt-out, but you should have to prove that you're taking care of things yourself. Man, I HATE SS...and yes, the ultimate goal to be achieve through that painful process would be the elimination of SS.


i'd like a flatter tax code, and little/no capital gains tax. if you've already taxed my income when I made it, and you're gonna tax it when I spend it, do you really have to tax it when I invest it, too (so I'll eventually have more money for you to tax when I spend it)?



legalize/decriminalize pot and tax the bejeezus out of it.


less corporate welfare.

7/17/2007 2:13:47 AM

aaronburro, just run for office, TWW will take care of the poll skewing for you:

*paging qntmfred*

7/17/2007 10:41:29 AM

Outlaw porkbarrel?

7/17/2007 1:45:33 PM